Do we have to do this thing where we pretend not to understand that process > results in spring?
Process: Colson punishes a low fastball.
Result: Inning ending out for a hitless day.
Which piece is more predictive?
You can have a bad process and get bad results, like the 2024 Sox. You can also have a good process and still get bad results, like the Dodgers 1-4 spring record this year. The Rockies had a .586 win% in spring last year, and then had a 101 loss season.
The process is the informative piece rather than the record itself. The Sox being bad at both doesn't magically make the record matter. I don't care about Cactus League standings, I care about the process improving.
But of course, everyone here knows that already, because none of you would be infused with optimism by a bunch of spring wins driven by errors from opposing AA defenders or lighting up camp invite reclamation projects (though, of course, when OUR #96 filler from the backfields gets lit up, it's totally predictive of the season to come...)
Judge the process. Or don't, I admit that it's a pain with inconsistent broadcasts and data. But then also don't be a spring training box score watcher declaring that you know they'll be bad because Colson went 0-3 and a pitcher working on a new FB shape gave up contact that got misplayed into runs by a MiLB deal guy who won't make the team.
So much server space here is wasted performatively complaining about silly fake things when there are actual real things to complain about and it makes it so discouraging to try to have actual baseball conversations.